Another view on Men's Size

Ive always been a libertarian. Even before I knew what the word meant.

I read a few books on it a few years back, Charles Murray's What It Means to Be a Libertarian comes to mind.

As defined in the book, and probably elsewhere, the core concept of Libertarianism is to deprive people of the use of force, and allow them to form free arrangements and contracts with each other.

Charles Murray wrote

The first legitimate use of the police power is to restrain people from injuring one another. Government accomplishes this end through criminal law and tort law.

Criminal law, rightly construed, forbids the basic offenses that involve initiation of the use of force. Civilized societies have condemned these for millennia: assault, murder, rape, and theft in their many variants. Criminal law also rightly forbids fraud. The difference between criminal law in a libertarian society and in the one we now inhabit is that, while a libertarian society would retain only a tiny fraction of the laws we now have, it would take the few remaining laws extremely seriously. For a libertarian society to function, it is essential that people be deprived of the use of force. In practical terms this means that the use of force is met by such certain and discouraging punishment that few people try to initiate the use of force, and almost all who try live to regret it. Enforcement of criminal law requires police, courts, and prisons.

How does this relate to Men's Size?
Simple - Men's Size is a weapon - a kind of force, and a non-confiscatable one. Given that the police cannot be everywhere at once, nor are inclined, nor trustable, nor swift enough, to partake in everyday matters - this poses a real problem for a libertarian society.

The next best thing to depriving people of force is of course to equalize force. Which is exactly what stun guns, mace and guns do.

Going back to my girlfriend problems - I realize that what it looks like is an issue, its not the overriding one.
A more important (though not total) issue is the feeling of safety I give up by getting an attractive girl (or 'stealing' one away from a larger suitor, or during being watched by people everywhere). I survive by being under the radar in a land of bullies (physical and social).

Given the moderate amount of interest I have received from women, this issue is greater than women's free sexual choice for me.

In a libertarian society, would a man who seduces your wife be punished?

I find the question irrelevant,

But to answer it, Im thinking no system is perfect - so yes - if in that society the wife's sexuality is considered the husbands property (yes, I read your recent postings on niceguy). Because then clearly he has broached your property.

The relevance is that force isn't the only problem, the only thing society needs to regulate.  Libertarians are too keen to enforce all contracts, which can cause other problems.

There are societies where physical violence is a major problem, but in America and Canada, I think sleaze is a bigger problem.

Anyway, something like mace should solve your problems.  I personally can't relate since I never had this kind of expression of interest from women, and because when I was single, I had no fear at all since I didn't value my life.

I think a libertarian society need not be one where people can get away with violating contracts by going behind others' backs. I mean, that's what guns are for, right? But you'd have to be careful or such a society could become very violent very quickly.

To me, size has always been a problem in that I appear weak and puny compared to most men. I'm not that big, and it's definitely a confidence issue. Whenever I see an attractive girl with a boyfriend, he's always larger than her, size-wise. Even if he's shorter than her. I see this as a big obstacle for me, as I want an attractive woman.

Ardia wrote

How does this relate to Men's Size?
Simple - Men's Size is a weapon - a kind of force, and a non-confiscatable one. Given that the police cannot be everywhere at once, nor are inclined, nor trustable, nor swift enough, to partake in everyday matters - this poses a real problem for a libertarian society.

The next best thing to depriving people of force is of course to equalize force. Which is exactly what stun guns, mace and guns do.

Exactly.

I was thinking about this the other day. Since police cannot be relied on and men are naturally unequal, this means men need to come up with their own solutions. One solution I've considered is that men like ourselves should only go out in public in sizable groups. Groups have an intimidation factor, which scares criminals.

Another idea is all of us should train in fire arms and mace use. Body building and karate is useless when confronting men whom are naturally bigger and better fighters then you.

Lastly, strict safety guidelines should apply to our women. Women, especially young women, should never go out in public without male guardianship. Male guardianship should start with fathers and move it's way down the chain to brothers. Extended male family members can offer surplus guardianship where needed. Once a woman marries, guardianship should become the primary responsibility of the husband's family. This includes a son of mature age eventually guarding his mother in absence of his father.

I plan to make a thread entitled "What gives men power?". In this thread I'll discuss what gives men power over other men.

I'm a big advocate of firearms ownership and concealed carry training. I can't emphasize it enough. Guys like us need to be armed for self-defense purposes. There is no leeway here.

I also think it's good for making a guy more "alpha." I mean, it just feels manly, and it's a good confidence boost.

Scorpius wrote

I'm a big advocate of firearms ownership and concealed carry training. I can't emphasize it enough. Guys like us need to be armed for self-defense purposes. There is no leeway here.

I also think it's good for making a guy more "alpha." I mean, it just feels manly, and it's a good confidence boost.

The only problem is laws supporting use of firearm's may be weak. How effective is using a firearm on criminals, if you're put in jail by a kangaroo court of liberals for defending yourself? We need a new equalizing invention that has the power of firearms, yet isn't lethal. Until this comes along men like us will be forced to kill criminals and go to jail for defending ourselves.